The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Firstly, the version I saw of The Hobbit was in 2D and ran at 24 fps (frames per second), I think, not the 3D version which runs at 48 fps to which a lot of people have been complaining out, mainly how it shows up some of the prosthetics and cheapens the grand images that are part of the film and the Middle Earth series as a whole.

But back to the film that I saw, it is one that is caught between the visual ideas of both of it’s directors, Guillermo Del Toro and Peter Jackson, Del Toro initially signed on to work on The Hobbit films, then departed during pre-production because of delays and financing problems. Jackson then took over as director, as a result it is clear to see the influences of both, the creatures it would seem have come straight from one of Del Toro’s notebooks, the most obvious being the Goblin King and his close subjects. Whereas the world is for the most part Jacksons Middle Earth, with a few exceptions as well, such as the troll camp and Rhadaghast, his home and his sleigh, but I will say no more, look like they have come out of some child friendly Pan’s Labyrinth.

The story itself is one of relative simplicity, as Gandalf brings Bilbo Baggins into the company of 13 dwarves led by Thorin Oakenshield, to help them regain their former home of Erebor. The book the novel is based on is nowhere near as large in scale as The Lord of the Rings trilogy, so how they are planning on stretching out The Hobbit into three films is a mystery. The first part is severely padded with invented moments, not a negative aspect as they are generally done well here, but also moments that seem to serve Lord of the Rings, the few of these that there are, tend to relate to Sauron in a guarded way or Saruman.

The true strength of the film, as with others from the eventual six film series, is in the performances, this time led by Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins, who plays it perfectly. The highest praise I can give him is that there is no other actor I can imagine playing Bilbo now. In one film he portrays are more interesting leading Hobbit than Frodo and Sam were as a collective in the other films. Sir Ian McKellen, as always is superb as Gandalf, as are the rest of the returning actors.

The biggest surprise was Richard Armitage as Thorin, who plays the king without as throne in a really interesting way, he almost completely ignores trying to be at all sympathetic, instead choosing the route of the vengeful child, who wants revenge for the death of his family as well as to return his people to their home.

The dwarves in this film have an interesting but also jarring look about them, which makes it hard to imagine that they are in anyway the same race that Gimli belonged to. In The Hobbit, they range from handsome and beardless to cartoon-esque or with strange facial features that doesn’t fit with the rest of the film. The actors though do shine through this impediment and bring each one to life with the varying amount of screen time and dialogue, mimicking what they did with the fellowship in The Fellowship of the Ring.

As with the other Middle Earth films, The Hobbit has a hefty run time, roughly 2hrs and 45 mins, which in and of itself isn’t a problem, the films in the series were just as long, if not longer but did not drag, The Dark Knight Rises another film released this year has an almost identical run time, but didn’t feel it’s length. The Hobbit, unfortunately does. At times it is flat out painful, especially early on, the sequence in bag end, which feels like half an hour, goes on and on and on. Quite easily, this film could have lost 15 to 20 minutes, which would have helped the film later on, as by the time the ‘riddles in the dark’ sequence starts with Gollum, I was no longer as interested or engaged as I should have been, as this section of the film is easily it’s strongest and was something that really helps to pick the film up for it’s climax.

Despite what I have said, The Hobbit isn’t a bad film, it is saved by its performances and some of its set pieces, mostly the ones close to the end of the film, but it sags under it’s only length. Compared to The Fellowship of the Ring (The film easiest to compare it to) it falls short, it lacks the pacing and energy of that first film.

Hopefully the second film in this trilogy will learn from the mistakes of this one and move with more direction and purpose, a change of subtitle for the next one wouldn’t be the worst thing either.

The Master

Paul Thomas Anderson has quite frankly never made a bad film, he may have only made five, three of which could easily be described as modern masterpieces, I am referring to Boogie Nights, Magnolia and There Will Be Blood. This back catalogue of work had me desperate to go and see his most recent film, religious/cult based drama The Master. I left the cinema in a state of utter confusion, even now I don’t know if I like it, or hate it. It will divide people, there will be no middle ground on this film. It is gruelling at points and offers little to no obvious answers or conclusions to it’s nearly two and a half hour run time.

Let’s start with the positive, all of the performances are superb and will surely garner numerous nominations for Joaquin Phoenix (Leading Actor), Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Supporting Actor) and Amy Adams (Supporting Female). Phoenix’s Freddie Quell is the World War Two veteran who struggles to find any kind of direction is life, more than happy to just drink have sex and fight. His physical ordeals are visible on his face and in the contorted way that he walks and moves, this is a man literally twisted and disfigured by what he has seen and done.

Hoffman plays Lancaster Dodd, the head of religion/cult/belief system (I won’t give away their methods or beliefs) called ‘The Cause’ , who comes across Quell when he stows aboard a boat and gets very drunk. Dodd is a man who fully believes in what he preaches, has all the answers and who controls the actions of many people, but cannot stand to be challenged, this roars to the surface at several points throughout the film, usually bringing a shock of both the recipient and anyone close by. Adams plays his wife, who it could be argued is the real driving force behind Dodd and the one who wants to protect everything that they have worked for and towards all these years. She wants to keep Dodd and ‘The Cause’ free from harm, which arguably it could be say is added to by Quell and his arrival.

Visually, the film is stunning, as with all of his previous films there is a beauty and artistic way that each shot if framed, much in the same way that Kubrick did, especially in something like Barry Lyndon. I was unable to see it on the 70mm print due to location, but even without that visuals still stand up. In a time when shaky camera work and found footage is becoming more and more popular, it is refreshing to see a director and cinematographer (Mihai Malaimare Jr.) take their time and show us just how good film can be with a static camera.

The biggest fault that will be found with The Master is with it’s lack of traditional narrative that drives the film. In fact, there is barely any story really within the film, instead focusing entirely on the characters. This is sometimes a strength, but for the length of this film, it really does need more of narrative, not necessarily making it plot heavy, just a narrative, perhaps relating to the outside world and it’s view of “The Cause”, which is something we rarely see, or a goal for them to work towards in justifying themselves to the wider world.

At times the film is hard to watch, it’s pacing is very slow and asks you to try and move through this very opaque and blurry film, filled with complex and damaged characters. At times you will feel frustrated and it’s at this point where you will have to decide whether or not to stick out, or turn off the DVD (when it comes out) or leave the cinema. I stayed, but there were a few that left during my screening.

Argo

Movies and spies has always been a popular combination with cinema goers, so it was only a matter of time before a film that so perfectly allowed their intertwining came around. Based on true events, we follow attempt by the CIA to exfiltrate six of their countrymen from Iran, after their embassy was stormed. Argo is Ben Afflecks third film behind the camera and his second as the leading man in his film, the other being 2010’s The Town, one of the few criticisms he has ever really come under since making the leap to director.

Affleck plays the central role of Tony Mendes, a CIA operative who puts forward the idea for using a film as a cover for getting the diplomats out of Iran, the performance is very stripped down, always played as vague and ambiguous, offering no details about his real life outside of the mission. At times this is interesting, but also, it would have been better to get a little more of this man onto the screen. The one plus of this though, is that it allows the other performances to shine, all of the diplomats are interesting and given just enough time and depth to make you invest in them and ultimately see them escape to freedom.

The real stars of the film, at least performance wise, is the trio of John Goodman, Alan Arkin and Brian Cranston, who play a Hollywood make-up artist, a producer and a colleague of Mendes in the CIA. Whenever one of these men are on the screen, the film really comes to life, adding energy, dramatic tension and humour. Some of the scenes with Goodman and Arkin are the best of the year.

The plot is relatively straight forward and easy to follow, we begin with the siege of the embassy and escape of the six diplomats to the Canadian ambassadors house. After that, the CIA learns that they escaped and begin putting together a series of plans to get them out, some ludicrous, others completely impractical, as pointed out by Mendes in the meeting. Then once Mendes stumbles across the idea of using a film as a cover, the film really finds it’s pacing and direction, which drives us through to the dramatic and obviously exaggerated ending.

One of the films criticisms is that it portrays the majority of the Iranians as nothing but wild, incoherent savages, lusting after American blood. One of the biggest strengths to this argument is that there are little to no subtitles for any of the Iranian conversations. However, it could be argued that it is clear from actions of the Iranians of what they are saying, a confrontation in a bazaar is a prime example of this, when one of the diplomats gets into an argument, neither one is capable of talking to the other and so for the Iranian at least, we have nothing but his actions and tone to decide what he is saying.

Visually, the film is shot cleanly and without much complication, choosing instead to focus it’s attention on the characters instead of spectacle, a decision that Affleck deserves praise for. Many others would have filled this with unnecessary filler, while here it is kept stripped down and fast moving. The performances are the real strength and luckily they are allowed to shine.

Argo is a well made, character led thriller that also works as brilliant satire on Hollywood and the movie business at the same time. It is well worth your time and a film that will have you glued to the screen for the last half an hour.

Skyfall

Arguably one of the most anticipated and talent filled Bond films has finally arrived, bringing with it great critical and fan acclaim, something that makes a difference after 2008’s misstep with Quantum of Solace, which closed out the story that had begun two years earlier in the magnificent Casino Royale. Now we are back with a more experienced and worn out Bond, who has to face up to truths about his past, his future and his relationship with M.

Daniel Craig returns in his third outing as Bond, and now given a much better script and story to work with, he returns to the level we saw him reach in Casino Royale, giving us a more balanced character, demonstrating the charming gentleman, but also the cold blood killer as well, they also introduce an idea of substance abuse into the character. Less drugs I imagine, more alcohol and womanizing, maybe. Craig has always strived to give us the most fully formed version of the character, similar to what Timothy Dalton did with his run in The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill. The moments where we get the most interesting parts of the character come during an assessment of Bond early on, as well as the long, not in a bad way, climax of the film, details of which I will keep quiet on.

By now, all the criticism of having Craig as Bond must be nothing more than an old joke, he may not have dark hair or be as obviously attractive as Pierce Brosnan, few are if we are being honest, but like I said, he gives us an interesting Bond, one that we can largely relate to, is fallible but one we desperately want to see succeed.

A few weeks before the release of Skyfall, Sam Mendes referenced the effect that The Dark Knight had had on the development of the film, due to it’s success in being a big action film, but one that offered up ideas to think about and also pushed serious character development to the forefront of the film. Here that influence is easy to see, whilst the main development is naturally with Bond, we get a fair bit of information and time with M, fleshing out a role that normally only garners five to ten minutes to screen time at best.  Structurally, there is also a number of similarities between the two films, especially when certain moments or plot points happen and very similar points in the film, as before I won’t go into details as it could give away spoilers.

As with most action films, the strength of the film can rest significantly on the shoulders of the villain and how good he or she is. In this case, the always brilliant Bardem is the one charged with making Bond, M and the whole of MI6’s life very difficult as electronic terrorist Silva. He doesn’t at first have the traditional quirks of Bond villains, such as deformities, although the blonde hair is as unsettling as Donald Pleasances’ Blofeld from You Only Live Twice.

Easily one of the best villains of the whole Bond series, Silva is a calculating and merciless man who does terrible things, some of which we see, some we only hear of. But at the same time, he is emotionally damaged, not overtly but it’s always there, as well as vulnerable and deeply affected by his own past. The biggest compliment you can pay Bardems performance is that the film picks up significantly once his screen time increases.

The action in Skyfall returns to the less Bourne-like style of Quantum of Solace, to more of the Martin Campbell style of Casino Royale, where the action is brutal, but is well shot. Well shot is probably unfair on Sam Mendes and Cinematographer Roger Deakins, who if there is any justice in the world will surely get at least a nomination from the Oscars for his work. A fist fight in Shanghai is so brilliantly shot and choreographed that it could almost be taken on it’s own as a piece of art.

The story at times does struggle to keep it’s momentum going for the first half of the second act. The pre titles sequences and twenty minutes that follow after it are great, especially the character moments between Bond, M, Q, Eve and Mallory. But from then up until Silva really appears in the film, it is a bit sluggish, as they try and pin together the opening and a character from then to the main plot.  But as previously mentioned, once Silva appears and we return to England, or Bond does, then the film picks up and runs with everything it’s got to the end. The characters get more complex, their pasts exposed as the action and stakes are raised considerably.

With talk of the next film already being in production, it will be interesting to see who they will get to come on board. As there are some significant boots to fill for all those who may be involved.

Time to bring in Blofeld maybe?

The Greatest Team on Earth: The Justice League

What a great accelerator $1.4bn can be to a film studio, this one being Warner Bros and the $1.4bn being roughly what The Avengers grossed this summer at the box office. That film released, obviously, by Marvel Studios and Disney. Now despite the success of the The Dark Knight Trilogy which championed and “realistic” take on the Batman character (easily one of DC and Warner Bros. biggest characters), as well as making them a fair bit of cash, nearly £2.4bn I believe. Their reboot, which so far looks intriguing, of Superman next year promises to bring them in another healthy income ever two or three years, they have decided to finally (well, again) kick start a Justice League film to be released in 2015, directly competing with the already established The Avengers sequel.

The basic idea of the Justice League, and I will keep it to a minimum as I am no expert on the team, is that is a way for DC to bring together their greatest heroes and have them confront great threats to the planet as well as, and this is part that is the most interesting to me, work with each other despite the very different rules, beliefs and morals that they all had. The biggest draw being the relationship between Superman and Batman.

The biggest arguments against the idea is that fans want to see the heroes be introduced in their own films, in much the same way as Marvel did with their Phase One plan, which worked, despite the varying degrees of quality the films had. So that we get to know them, who they are what they can do, then have them meet up. This introduction, will be even more important for people who don’t know some of the less familiar, although I’m sure still recognizable other members such as The Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern and Aquaman.

As for the big two of Batman and Superman, it could be argued that they don’t need the Justice League film. Batman certainly not after the conclusion of Christopher Nolan’s trilogy, which although ended it’s run and continuity , leaves the character unquestionably a top the comic book mountain. Superman, despite some average recent films, will always draw interest from both the hardcore and the mainstream, as one of the first ever superheroes and arguable the greatest. So what will WB achieve by forcing two of what could be their biggest money makers into a risky film that could knock back their production of DC properties, not that it could get any slower really, back several years.

As it’s going to happen, lets look at how it could be done, these are only my theories and I don’t put them forward as the only way it could be done. Will Beall, of the soon to be released Gangster Squad is currently on script duties which is understandable being kept under wraps until it is finished, or is at least ready to be shown to prospective directors and actors.

With the basic story, they will have to be careful so that they don’t imitate too much of The Avengers, especially with the team coming together over the course of the film just in time for the final showdown with whichever villain they choose. They have to do something with the characters that is different, one thing that differentiates DC from Marvel, is that DC’s characters tend to be darker and more complex (in my opinion anyway). So play up to it, give the characters important decisions to make, make them difficult, ones that could very well tear the team or at least potentially force out other members out or cause themselves to be exiled as a result. This is something that The Avengers didn’t have, and while there have been hints that their third film will take from the Civil War story arc, DC and Warner has the chance to get in first and deliver and potentially very interesting comic book film with depth and intelligence, in the same vain that The Dark Knight trilogy did.  The only obstacle with this idea is that it requires the characters to be fully fleshed out, ideally in their own films, something they won’t get if they are thrown head first into this team up film.

One of the most important parts of any action film is its villain, if they’re memorable and genuinely pose a threat then the film thrives as you get behind the heroes. If they’re weak then it’s hard to feel any sense of danger or fear of the villain and his or her threat. So with that in mind it’s unlikely that we will see any of Batman’s Rogue Gallery, it’s more likely to be one of the bigger, most likely extra terrestrial threats, such as Darkseid or Brainiac, my personal favourite, as it would turn parts of the Earth into warzones, a kin to the opening of the DC Online video game.

As for casting the Justice League themselves, I’ll quickly rattle off a few suggestions for who could play the mandatory characters and even make a case for one or two secondary members. As there is no way of guessing which supporting characters, such as Alfred or Lois Lane could appear, I will avoid these roles and just focus on the “heroes”.

Superman will be in a tricky situation come 2015, either Man of Steel will have flopped and swept under the carpet by WB, or it will have been a resounding success, therefore cementing Henry Cavills position as Superman. Which will force WB into a decision about whether they want to carry over this Superman into the Justice League, thereby immediately linking him with all the other characters. Or they could cast someone else and keep this continuity separate from Man of Steel and the eventual (at least for Batman) solo films of their heroes. So to keep it simple for the wider audiences and because I like him as an actor, let’s stick with Henry Cavill.

The tough one, Batman, after Christian Bales performance, it’s going to take a very brave and talented man to step up and take on the cap and cowl. I previously touted Ryan Gosling as one of the few both capable of portraying the various sides of Bruce Wayne as well as a big enough name to attract attention. I would still at this point be very happy with Gosling taking the role.

But as an alternative how about Jake Gyllenhall, he was considered back for Batman Begins, so this isn’t completely original, but of late he has begun to take a number of interesting roles that have challenged him and undoubtedly brought out the best in him. Although his best I still feel is Brokeback Mountain. It wouldn’t be a surprise if he were to get the role, he has the right looks, the acting capability and is certainly a name actor.

Wonder Woman is arguably one of the hardest characters to get right on screen, bar the seventies television show there has been a number of false starts and stalled projects. But as she is one of DC’s top characters and an important member of the team, she will have to turn up here, cast well, written well and given the time to develop. Firstly she has to be an equal, essentially to Superman and Batman physically (I don’t mean size, as that would look odd) so that she can hold her place as part of that trinity.

My personal suggestion would be Eva Green, she has the height and the looks to pull off the characters look and can also portray very different versions and parts of the character, she can be strong and commanding whilst also vulnerable (not that the character is permanently weak or vulnerable) during the character scenes throughout the film. Which will be crucial, none more so to Wonder Woman, during the film.

The Flash, like Wonder Woman has been touted to get a film of his own for the last six or seven years, but has unfortunately never come to fruition. One of the problems being that there have been a few people to hold the title of The Flash during the characters run. The most popular version seems to be Barry Allen and is the one that is probably most likely to appear in the film.

The Flash is the character that in all likelihood would handle most of the comic moments, a character trait that I believe is apart, in certain ways of all characters. Also when compared with who else is on the team, is largely to be expected. As for the casting well, prior to The Dark Knight Rises, I would have said Joseph Gordon Levitt, but now I’d be more inclined to go for I’ll throw out three of four names, all of which would be interesting choices more than qualified to bring a different portrayal of the character, starting with Logan Marshall-Green (Prometheus), John Krasinski (The US Office), Ben Barnes (Prince Caspian) or, ah what the hell Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

The Green Lantern had a pretty rough start when it comes to feature films, it didn’t hit the heights that anybody wanted, but neither was it as bad as some people make out it to be, it was about half an hour too short and left one big plotline unresolved, too busy hoping for a sequel, before they had finished the first one. But still, I would hold strong with Ryan Reynolds, he gave us a likeable and layered character to follow, undoubtedly doing the best with a muddied and sequel bait heavy script.

Another advantage of this, is that it saves WB from having to introduce this character again, his origin is out there for the people who want to find it and may even help to shift some of those DVD’S and Blu Rays they have stashed away as well as reintroduce one of their greatest characters to the mainstream.

The Justice League does feature more than this, but for me, these five would probably be a good place for the first film to start, have these as your core characters, in much the same way that The Avengers did (with Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Captain America, then Hawkeye and Black Widow as two equally placed second tier characters).  But there is always the chance of more, the first person would to come off the bench would have to be Aquaman, a character whose story takes place largely under the sea, arguably a character who very much needs a film of his own to get this unique world and setting across, much like Thor did. I only know the very basics of his mythology, so I can only talk in broad strokes. He would be a hard character to make work, specifically as his powers are somewhat limited to the ocean, with varying degrees of telepathy and mind control, but this varies on interpretation.

As for casting, you wouldn’t far wrong with Armie Hammer (although I’m sure he would rather hold for the Batman role that is always talked about). Failing like a prominent TV actor such as Nicolas Coster-Waldau (Game of Thrones) would give the character screen time, but without the pressure of having to make him a top tier player in the film.

The final founding member, is the Martian Manhunter, a character who has currently fallen out of the core seven since the reboot last year. As his form is not that of a human, although his basic form is humanoid, the role would largely be prosthetic based in appearance, although with the ability to shape shift quite a few different, yet consistently maintained performances would be required. When it comes to this kind of performance, Doug Jones (Hellboy, Pan’s Labyrinth) is the one that most people cite as his career has the most example of it.

The last character, who is a personal favourite, is Green Arrow, aka Oliver Queen, the character is getting his own television show, which will have just started. So if all goes well, WB could have a character with roughly three seasons of history, development and a pretty healthy following to bring to this, as with Green Lantern, it would allow the character to into the film with his history already established, ready to go. It would be a risk to the show more than the film if it develops the following I am sure they hope it will.

Some of these characters may, in the grander scheme of things not warrant roles in the film, some of which is understandable, but there are others, who are crucial to it’s marketability and it’s loyalty to the material. The success of not just this film, but the spin off films will depend on their portrayal and casting. The pressure is certainly on.

Picking a director for WB is going to be hard, as it will almost instantly signal their intent for the film, tonally and thematically as we study their back catalogue. It will also be a big step in either winning over the fans, or losing them. Some of the names rumoured so far have been interesting, Ben Affleck (although I think he would be better suited to the next Batman), The Wachowski’s or even Zack Snyder, continuing on from Man of Steel. All of them are a step in the right direction for the film, but still apart from Snyder, none of them really seem to fit the role.

If Warner Bros really mean to have this done for summer 2015, these and many other roles will be cast and questions answered within the next year. But till then we will still have time to get angry and speculate.

Looper

Time travel films are a divisive sub genre of science fiction, for people who refuse to accept that it is impossible (I am not arguing that fact here), they come in sceptical and quick to point out it’s flaws and gaps in the logic. The other group will wait till see what the filmmakers are doing with the time travel device before they make a judgment and their interest and enthusiasm goes one of two ways. Time travel and the basic idea of it, in my opinion is best used when the characters are forced to make difficult moral decisions when faced with a freedom to change something, which luckily Looper has, as an integral part of it’s plot.

The basic plot of the film is that Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a Looper a killer who works for a mob that exists 30 years in a future, so that when they want someone killed, they send him back in time for Joe to kill. But when Old Joe (Bruce Willis) is sent back from the future, Joe hesitates, allowing his older self to escape and cause havoc with his future.

Two of the biggest strengths of the film are the two lead performances, especially from the two main characters, Joe and Old Joe, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis. Gordon-Levitt throughout the film wears, what I assume is some kind of facial prosthetic, so that he looks more like Willis, his jaw and nose are altered the most and it does create a buyable if somewhat jarring, at least initially, visual effect.

As they both play the same character, but at different points in their lives and with different personalities, it is important that they appear as the same character and it’s a tribute to the way that both actors imitate the others facial ticks and mannerisms. In young Joe we get an arrogance that the life he leads now won’t end and that all he wants to do is look after himself. But in old Joe, we get a man who has been changed, by what I won’t say, and is now more in tune with the world, has learned some humility and is willing to sacrifice himself for something he cares deeply enough about.

We see more of young Joe throughout the film, as old Joe only cuts through the film at certain points as he does what he came to do. This was a good decision by writer/director Rian Johnson, as it is young Joe who has the films main arc to carry, which begins with him being one of the best Loopers, to him ending up (a vast amount of the second half takes place here) on a farm with single mum Sara (Emily Blunt) and her son Cid. I won’t go into details about the second half, as it really is best to go and watch it and experience it for yourself.

As with all time travel stories there may be a paradox in their somewhere, which could ruin the story for you if you actively look it out and want to, but in Looper the rules which the world sets itself, for my at least, actively discourage you from looking for a hole, or even thinking that there is hole in the logic. There may be one or two in there, but they won’t affect your viewing of the film.

The look of Looper is one of it’s biggest strengths, the future (young Joe’s world) is not the clean and crisp version of the world that is sometimes portrayed, nor is it the all out dystopia that seems to be the other option. In this future, we haven’t that far on from where we are now, the only difference in the city is that people are still driving cars we drive now and living in the same kind of run down homes that populate most cities. Basically, if you don’t have money you are being left behind. Outside of the city, on Sara’s farm, you would be unable to tell the difference from then to today, bar the odd piece of machinery that is surely only a few years away from us today. This is certainly a world that is believable especially given that it is only 30 years away at this point, it’s not as depressing as Blade Runners Los Angeles, but it is on it’s way.

Looper is beautifully shot, the city’s look crowded and overbearing, whereas the outskirts and farm look warm and comforting, and obvious escape from what the characters know goes on there. The camera is kept secure and the shot expertly composed, we see everything we should and never in jumpy disorientating shakiness that some recent films have used. Cinematographer Steve Yedlin, who has worked with Johnson on all three films, deserves much of the praise for making the films camera work engaging yet never drawing attention to the flashier moments, instead bringing them together with a style that feels fluid once editor Bob Duscay has gotten his hands on it.

Rian Johnson guides us through a story that could have been very confusing with a calm and understandable style, much like Christopher Nolan did with Inception or Duncan Jones (and writer Ben Ripley) with Source Code, giving us a complex idea, but trusting enough that audience will be able to follow the plot and be interested enough to engage and invest in the characters. Johnson certainly has a big future ahead of him if he keeps producing the quality of films that he has so far.

Looper is the kind of sci-fi we don’t get a lot of now, intelligent and full of ideas, so go and see it regardless of how you feel about time travel. Films like this need to be supported, as they don’t come around to often. It is definitely worthy of your time.

Killing Them Softly

This is a film that is concurrently simple and complex, the basic story is where the simplicity comes in, as we witness the robbery of a card game and the fallout as the culprits try to survive and the organized crime community look to find those responsible. Where the complexity comes is from some of the characters and the very political message and it’s comments on America as a society, which gives one of the best closing lines in a film, as it sums everything about the film, it’s characters, world and message. I won’t spoil it here; it’s worth witnessing for yourself.

This is a film that is primarily about characters and violence, more often than not, one or more characters performing an act of violence against another. Starting with the violence, the majority of it is bearable, but there is one ‘beating’ that is genuinely hard to watch, but not because it is over blown or exaggerated. It is played as real as I can imagine this kind of thing looking like, which is probably why it is so hard to watch. The other moments of violence are committed with weapons, almost entirely firearms, and are done with more discretion and efficiency, the act isn’t played out in some grandiose way, it happens and then we move on.

The characters in Killing Them Softly are the big selling point of this film, with a cast led by Brad Pitt, who gives a charismatic yet very understated performance, who plays hitman/enforcer Jackie Cogan who is the men sent to find out what happened and kill those responsible. While he doesn’t immediately arrive in the film, he appears about ten or fifteen minutes in, he quickly establishes himself as the centre of everything as he plans how best to safely get rid of everyone. He switches from frustrated and charming, to manipulating and finally into a merciless cold blooded killer.

The rest of cast has many highlights, two in particular stand out, Ben Mendelsohn as the borderline crazed Russell and James Gandolfini, the aging New York hitman who Cogan brings down to take one of the hits. Mendelsohn gives real life and mannerisms to a characters who could have been just comic relief in other actors hands, but here we get a man who wants to try and get out of the rut and life he is leading at the moment and move to the next echelon in the criminal world, but for reasons I won’t give away, just can’t seem to make it.

Gandolfini as the New York hitman plays the role in a similar way to that of Tony Soprano, but here we get a man, who through two monologues, who is all to aware of his vices and what he has done and that is taking a serious toll on not just him, but also his wife. He knows he is on his last chance, but can’t resist the pull of the work he does, or the rewards that come with it.

Andrew Dominik, in what is only his third feature film (the other two were Chopper and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford) gives the film an interesting look, one that represents the world these characters inhabit, it’s dirty dark and almost completely devoid of any glamour, we spend most of our time in cars, bars and motel rooms. But still the film is shoot beautifully by Grieg Fraser, letting the camera explore this wonderfully horrible places and crimes. The only slight negative that I can say about this film is that one or two of them scenes go on a bit too long, usually they play on long after the point and subject of the conversation has been achieved. A bit more prejudicial editing may have benefitted the films pacing.

This isn’t a film for the faint hearted; it goes in deep with violence and the effect of those actions of the people connected. While the plot is simple, it’s for the characters and the ideas behind it that is the real attraction and payoff to the film.

Total Recall

I never had a strong attachment to the first film, or the short story it was based on, Phillip K Dick’s We Can Remember It For You Wholesale, so I wasn’t against the idea of doing another film and one that is similar to the other at the original.

As with other films based on Dick’s writings, there are a lot of ideas, or at least potential ideas and a far bit of scope in which to ask various questions. In Total Recall the questions are most commonly dealing with identity and memory, a vast area in which ideas can be put forward and questions asked. Such as Blade Runner, which dealt with what is was to be human or Minority Report, which deals with the ideas of fate or chance and controlling/sensoring the future.

The basic story, I will try to avoid spoilers, is that Quaid (Colin Farrel) is a worker in a factory and pretty unhappy with how his life has turned out so far, so he goes to Rekall, a company that can give you the memories of being whatever you wanted to be. However when Quaid goes, it triggers something in his mind and he is suddenly capable of doing many things, the first being killing an entire police unit who have come for him. From there we follow Quaid as he tries to find out who he is, avoid being killed and being part of a large conspiracy.

After the first act, which is where the majority of the character work and story is told we are quickly taken at break neck speeds through the rest of the film to the climactic battle. We move from action sequence to action sequence, broken up with a short set of scenes that tell us something that just about moves us forward. Only when Cohaagen (Cranston) appears in the flesh, do we get any kind of extended dialogue scene that adds to the characters or the plot, this occurs at the start of the third act and serves mainly to set up the finale.

Farrell definitely gives a more rounded and confused performance than Schwarzenegger did in his portrayal, but this new version of the character lacks the wit, be it intentional or unintentional (for both films) and it does take the fun out the film at times, as we move from action scene to somber down time, with little build up or variety as the gears change. Farrell certainly comes off as more of a normal guy in the beginning, who is confused about where all this knowledge and the abilities are coming from and handles the transition well with the little, as mentioned before, character developments that happen during the second act.

The two female characters played by Jessica Biel and Kate Beckingsale seem for the most part to mere story devices, one Quaid is running from and the other he is running to, serving as a motivation and an antagonist. The roles aren’t forgettable, but the actresses do their best with fairly limited characterization. It would have been nice to have given them more than one note to play throughout the film, as neither one shows any doubts or sign of questioning what is going on around them.

Wisemans direction is good and does well with what he has, the action scenes, while long, are not interest killing, but it would have been nice to have seen more variety in them, than just chase scenes, especially earlier on. The world that these characters inhabit has a clear Blade Runner feel to it, not that it is a criticism, it looks great and the idea of the floating or different levels of the city adds and interesting look to the city, although there are one or two obvious nods to Scott’s film, specifically the running through the glass scene, which after the initial smirk is quite enjoyable.

If you liked the original one and it’s wit and humour, you may not like this slick and efficient version, which focuses more on its plot and the large visuals. But for a bit of entertainment that doesn’t ask too much, that being my only real criticism of the film, then it’s certainly worth two hours of your time. Whether you remember it in a week, who knows.

Sequel Bait

They largely dominate the cinemas between late April and early September, filling the large screen with another instalment in a series that made a lot of money or was very well received, sometimes even both, but more often than not it comes down to the previous films box office.

The biggest criticism with sequels is that they show a lack of originality and imagination, for the most part this is a fair arguments, a fair majority of them exist solely to cash in, such as the Saw series or the later Terminator films. It’s true that these films do take away from the more original summer films that come along every couple of years, or the smaller films that populate awards season, taking up screens and distributors or studios money, because these sequels are a safer bet.

But not all sequels are purely money grabbing, vacuous rubbish, one of the greatest films of all time is a sequel, I am talking about The Godfather Part II, which carried on the story of Michael Corleone from the first film, building upon it whilst also bringing back decisions and plot threads from the first film, mainly the answer he gives to his wife at the very end. Also 2010’s Toy Story 3 was a fitting finale to that great series, taking us and it’s characters on an emotionally draining and simultaneously uplifting journey, completing the story of these loveable toys.

But in recent years we have seen further instalments in a film franchise move backwards into a prequel such as Prometheus or Hannibal Rising or sideways into a sidequel(?) such as The Bourne Ultimatum, both of which have their own good points and bad points. The prequel offers the chance to go back and spend time with characters who stories either finished, were left ambiguous or died. But the risk is that something has to be changed, or a something omitted that could damage the original.

With a sidequel you face a similar scale of problems, the good points are that it allows you to add to the world that was already created in the first film(s), and bring in new characters and even show the affect that the original had on the wider world. But the problem is that you may not have the main characters from the original and risk the audience asking why they should bother to see it, when they have no emotional attachment to these people.

A film that did the prequel idea well(at least in my view) was Prometheus, choosing to go back and focus on the Space Jockey, a character that is only seen briefly in Alien, but which forms the basis for this film. Going back thirty years before the original, we know we aren’t going to get to see Ripley or Dallas, most of them haven’t been born or are very young, so we meet a new cast of characters and follow them as they search for these Engineers/Space Jockeys. The film is also careful not undermine anything from the original, instead only loosely linking it with Alien through one outcome of the finale, while the main conclusion sets up to take a sequel into a different place entirely.

A film that attempted the sidequel was the very recent The Bourne Legacy, the review of which should be just below this article, which showed the affects that The Bourne Ultimatum had on this world. It was a good idea and attempt but never seemed too linked with the other film, which some people may like, but it would have been good to see even more of the affects of what Jason Bourne, especially with the political side and what conversely affects Aaron Cross’s actions had on that world going on, as that side of story never really felt developed enough.

There are always films that wish had sequels, so that we could either spend more time with the characters or just enjoy the world that they live in. For me, a few examples of this would be Inception, The Departed and Blade Runner. The reasons for choosing these three, is that they all left me with the same question, “What happens next?” One of them offers a fairly ambiguous ending, the other a very traditional type of ending and the last asks one of the most fiercely debated questions in cinema.

What is the likelihood of seeing any of these films get a sequel? Well at least one in three at the moment, as Ridley Scott (along with original screenwriter Hampton Fancher) are working on a sequel to Blade Runner. While there were rumours of sequel to The Departed (that in it’s self based on the Infernal Affairs trilogy from Hong Kong) about a year after it’s release, nothing has happened in the last five years and it looks less likely that it will. Finally, the closest we will probably ever get to a sequel to Inception from Christopher Nolan at least, is going to be in a video game, something he himself has talked about doing.

With the difficulty of producing a sequel for these films becoming evident, it highlights the completeness of the films themselves, whereby a second film is not necessary as everything we need to know plays during the film. But for the sake of a bit of fun, let’s try and imagine a sequel to each of these films. Spoliers from here on out. With Blade Runner, I will detail the few bits and pieces of news that have come out (believe at your risk). Firstly, it will feature a female protagonist and that Deckard may or may not appear, but Scott has said that he would like Ford to return, how likely that is to happen, I don’t know. If they go this way they will probably have to answer the “Is Deckard a replicant?” question, which I would prefer not to have answered.

For my own idea, a film focusing on the Tyrell company would be interesting, especially considering how powerful it is and the state that it would be left in after the climax of the first film. Blade Runner offers us a complete world, one that is full of ideas and people that could be developed into a film that is as interesting as the first. One suggestion would be to minimise Deckards role (if they do use him) and set it shortly after the originals end, so we don’t have to answer that question.

I know that The Departed is based upon the first film in trilogy, but as I haven’t seen any of the original trilogy I will try and put forward a reasonably interesting idea of my own. At the end of the first film, all but two or three of the significant characters are dead, so this poses an interesting problem as you are faced with carrying over the story, but with hardly anyone left to continue the plot threads on. The storylines left were about Dignum (Wahlberg) and what he does after he kills Colin (Damon), there is also Madolyn (Farmiga) and her child. While the child storyline is nothing more than secondary plot thread, following Dignum, especially in the way he was portrayed would certainly be engaging, but a man on the run, which is presumably what he would be doing, can only fill so much time. But I would like a film that looks at the fallout of the events of the first film, as no doubt a lot of questions would be asked after everything that happened and someone would have to go in and sort out the mess and with only a few people who knew the truth alive that would prove difficult, but with those characters also having done questionable things and possibly not wanting to come forward, there is a lot of conflict to get through both in terms of plot and character.

With Inception, the final shot asks us to make our own mind up about where Cobb (DiCaprio) is and it was a great way for Nolan to end the film. So how do you get another film out of this world? I have two, or albeit brief ideas. The first is a prequel, not based around Cobb or any of the team from the first film, the only character who could appear is maybe Miles (Caine) but played by a younger actor, which would follow the development and breakout of the dream technology and the PASIV machine in particular from the military where it was developed. As the technology is still new at this point, faults and weaknesses with the technology would play into the use of it and as a result create the danger for someone using the machine.

The second idea would act as a sidequel, another job in the same world, but completely unrelated to the first film. One criticism of the first was that the dream world was too real, a pointless criticism when the team are trying to ensure that the mark doesn’t know he is dreaming initially, as well the world being two rigid and filled with hotels and skyscrapers, all solid structures, but again that is linked to the mind of the mark, a businessman. To change this, the mark could be someone of a creative disposition, whose mind would be more fluid and potentially Salvador Dali-esque.

Only brief ideas explained in broad strokes, some are not as interesting as others and more than likely, none will ever happen. But we will still be left with the entertaining and enjoyable originals that built worlds that we can continue on in our minds.

The Bourne Legacy

This is a tough film to judge as when it was first announced that there would be a fourth Bourne film, many, including myself, didn’t think that there was any real need for it. The Bourne Ultimatum pretty much tied pretty much everything that needed to be concluded into a neat bow. But when it was announced that it would be sidequel(?) of sorts, exploring the affects of the three films on other characters and expanding the world, then it began to get interesting.

The Bourne Legacy follows Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) as he tries to survive, after his own people decide to wipe out all of the operatives within certain programs, caused as a result of what Bourne did in the third film, but he needs something (spoiler free this time) that he can only get from scientist Marta Shearing who works in the biology section of many of the programs. As they search for what Cross is looking for, they are chased through America and Manila by their own people, led by Eric Byer (Edward Norton), who want to silence them and then get rid of everything that links them to the Treadstone and Blackbriar programs ( see the original Bourne trilogy for more detail).

Unlike the previous films in the series, this one takes a long time to get up an running, barring a few man versus the wilderness moments in the opening five minutes you are going to be waiting for about thirty minutes for the film to get going, there seems to be too much complicated explanation of simple problems or motivations that are only finally got to after conversations that go on for too long. The science in the film, I’m sure is accurate, however at times I didn’t have a clue about what they were talking about, until about five minutes later when it was stated very clearly and succinctly by one of the two people in the same conversation.

The action moves away from the frantic style of the previous films, especially the second two and adopts a more traditionally use of camera during the chase or fight scenes that cut through the films second half. This gives it a look of its own, which can only really help this series differentiate itself, at least stylistically from the other films. We just needed one or two shorter action sequences, earlier in the film.

The casting and performances of all the parts in The Bourne Legacy is first rate, in fact if it weren’t for the calibre of the acting, this film could have dragged significantly in it’s slower parts. The biggest question was obviously whether or not Jeremy Renner could fill the void left by Matt Damon and mostly he does a good job, the only reason he doesn’t is probably because of the attachment we have to the Jason Bourne character. Renner gives Cross a feel and personality very different to Bourne, more humorous and emotionally vulnerable throughout than we ever really see Bourne, who different in other ways.

The supporting roles, played by Weisz and Norton could have fallen into the same kind of area as previous characters from the series, but Norton plays the “villain” role as a man who is doing what he thinks is best for the country and himself, genuinely, whilst dealing with incompetency and half heartedness all around him. Weisz gives Shearings character a fully formed presence in the film, despite all of the scientific jargon that she has to get out in quick bursts to move the plot along, but as with any performance from her, it is the smaller, personal moments where she really brings the character alive, showing both her weakness and strength at the same time, which gives her dynamic with Cross an enjoyable feel to it.

I ultimately left the cinema with a somewhat apathetic and empty feeling, not sure what to really make of it. As has been mentioned in other reviews, it feels more like a set up to another series, the only problem is that this film could well turn off a lot of people to that next chapter in the story. We don’t necessarily need Jason Bourne and Paul Greengrass back, we just need the film to have that kind of excitement and tension. Cross and Shearing are interesting enough characters to use in a few films, just give them a story that matches that.

My Top Ten Films

Everyone has their own list of favourite films, some only have two or three, others have lists that rival IMDB’s top 250, so I thought I would have a go at naming a top ten of mine, a number that gave me sort sort of wiggle room to include a few more great films on this list and allowed me the opportunity to think back about some films that I hadn’t seen in a while.

As with any list there has to be some rules and this one is no exception, although I only laid down two concrete restrictions.

1. None could have been released since the start of the year (So no The Dark Knight Rises or Prometheus here).

2. Only one film from a director was allowed in, so as to introduce more variety.

There will be a few in this list that won’t surprise and some I hope will, there may even be a film you haven’t heard of or seen in here. So with that, I hope you enjoy the list.

10. Twelve Angry Men (1957)

One of the most engrossing courtroom/jury films every made, simply because it doesn’t rely on the revelations of the courtroom or the manipulating words of lawyers. It relies solely on the individual personalities and histories of the men in the jury room, who are all too ready to pronounce the defendant guilty. But one member believes that they should at least talk about it, even if he isn't complete convinced of his innocence. Over the course of the next ninety minutes, we see how these variables play into their own fluid ideas about the defendant an how they have affected their decision. Given that the film is set almost completely in the jury room, Sydney Lumet and writer Reginald Rose ramp up the tension, both with the case and the character dynamics, building it to a frantic revelatory climax.

9. The Social Network (2010)

When a facebook film was announced, a lot of people assumed it would be some kind of romantic comedy or drama based around the website, not really anything worth giving a second look. The Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher got involved and everything changed, we weren’t getting a film about how people use facebook to meet and socialize, this was about the meteoric and painful rise of the website and the betrayals that occurred during those initial years. This film is driven by two greats of modern filmmaking, Sorkin and his rapid dialogue and Fincher with his meticulously and beautifully shot visuals that really help bring the world in which these men lived in and some of them schemed in. Thankfully there isn’t a poke anywhere in this film, but it certainly gets a big ‘like’ from me.

8. The Fountain (2006)

For a film about the acceptance of death this film left in a good mood, I watched about a year after the death of my father and helped in a way to “move on” as they say, it felt personal to me, like I am sure it does to a lot of people who give it a chance, dealing with issues of accepting death and not allowing the death of a loved one to consume your life. Director and co-writer Darren Aronofsky gives each time period it’s own look, moving from the time of Spanish inquisition to the far future and travelling through space. The Fountain is a film that asks a lot of questions that don’t really get answers, but it’s more about ideas within the film that makes it really interesting. It won’t be everyone’s kind of film, that much is clear when you talk to anyone about it, it really is a love it or hate it film, but which side you fall into, it’s 90 minutes that deserve you attention.

7. LA Confidential (1997)

The first of three crime films in this list, this film pretty much became an instant crime classic when it was released 15 years ago, in which we follow three LAPD police officers as their separate paths bring them together in a case involving corruption, prostitution and organized crime all set in the 1950’s. Based on a mammoth novel by James Ellroy, the fact that writers Curtis Hanson (also director) and Brian Helgeland were able to even get the story to manageable length is an achievement in its self. But to then produce an emotionally engaging piece as this is true cinematic accomplishment, backed up by some unforgettable performances, specifically Russell Crowe and Guy Pearce. This film set many standards for the genre, which most films still struggle to reach.

6. The Secret In Their Eyes (2009)

Another crime film, but this time focusing on the impact of an unsolved crime, caused by the system of the time, that being the mid 1970’s in Argentina. Focusing on the investigation in a rape and murder of a woman, we follow a department as they try to solve the case despite various interference from outside influences, but it is the affect that it has on the people where this film thrives, showing us the lengths that some people will go to, to get revenge on another or the toll an event as significant as this can have on people for the rest of their lives.

5. Barry Lyndon (1975)

Released between A Clockwork Orange and The Shining, Barry Lyndon is an often overlooked Kubrick classic, focusing on rise and fall of Redmund Barry a poor Irishmen who is tricked out of his home town by the influential and sent on his way out into the wider world, where he fights in a war, turns spy and travels the world in luxury. While is the plot is fairly easy to follow and doesn’t ask much of the audience but to invest in these characters and their tragic stories, it is in the visuals that this film stands out. Each shot looks like a classic painting, shot widely, showing the viewer the splendour of the lives that these characters live. Quite simply, every image in the film is a complete joy to behold. Like other films in this list, it’s quite long, around three hours, but with any Kubrick film, once you start watching it, the characters, visuals and story hook you in and don’t let go of you.

4. Blade Runner (1982)

Which version you prefer is a really interesting topic, especially given the varying ideas and answers that each version asks. But all ask a central question, “What is it to be human?”, it is the question of all great science fiction and is very important considering Blade Runner and it’s story. The main narrative follows a detective, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), as he searches for four replicants who have returned to earth, killing people as they did. But along the way we are asked by director Ridley Scott and his writers many more interesting questions, the above mentioned in the forefront, the others I won’t mention so as to not spoil the film. The most recent Final Cut offers the most complete visual version of the film, but to really understand this film in all it’s complexities, it’s worth working your way through all three cuts.

3. Heat (1995)

One of, if not the best heist film ever made and that is a very high accolade to say of any film within that genre. Heat features some of the most engrossing and spectacular sequences shot during the 1990’s, one a ten minute long bank robbery and the other a five minute conversation between Al Pacino and Robert De Niro. I had heard about the heist from people but never truly thought it could live up to it, but as the dust settled on downtown Los Angeles after it had finished, it was hard to argue about just how close to perfect the sequence is.

But it’s not the action that defines this film, there probably only four or five big moments in it’s two and a half plus hour run time, it’s in it’s character development, especially the relationship and lives of the two central characters, a detective and a professional criminal, Hanna and McCauley (Pacino and De Niro) who are almost completely identical but at the same time very different, and it is for this reason that the film is so highly revered, it gives us the lives and motivations of the people we normally don’t get to spend time with.

2. Magnolia (1999)

I was introduced to Paul Thomas Anderson’s epic drama as part of a course presentation, I didn’t realise the run time when I chose it, but three hours later I was so thankful I did. Giving us a snapshot into the lives of about nine characters over the course of a day, each of who is subjected to a painful life changing experience. While the plot is relatively straight forward, something that often has to be the case for these ensemble films, it’s the complexity of the relationships between the characters where Magnolia comes alive, with some career best performances from most of the cast. The main theme of the film looks closely at the randomness of life, demonstrated perfectly in the films prologue, which is central to the unfolding stories, each one affecting the next. As I have said before, this film is three hours long, but if you give it that time, you will be deeply rewarded.

1. Memento (2000)

Christopher Nolan’s first film that didn’t have a budget that equated to the price of a decent second hand car and arguably still one of, if not his finest films and I am an avid fan of all his work. Following a few days and nights in the life of amnesiac Leonard Shelby (played by Guy Pearce) who is searching for his wife’s killer, but is only able to remember a few minutes, before his mind wipes, unable to commit short-term memories to the long term. Away from the more obvious plot of the film, Memento delves into ideas of subjective and objective information and obviously, memories. 

Unable to remember for himself Leonard has to rely on facts that he has found and committed to writing down, even on himself, so that he will be able to recall them later as he hunts for the man. As the film runs it to tense beginning (for those of you unaware, the film runs backwards, flicking through two different time frames, one forwards and the other backwards, moving through time frame that Leonard remembers before he resets, the film explains this better than I do, you begin to question what not just Leonard remembers, but what he is happy to forget.

So there were go, my top ten. There are a few big omissions, both in terms of films and directors, but I found this list harder to write that I honestly thought it would be, and I ask anyone who reads this to do the same, then write it down to give it a sense of permanence. Then come back in five minutes and see if you still agree with your own decisions.

I hope you have enjoyed reading this and feel free to send your comments or abuse in whichever way you feel most comfortable.